John Carroll University Carroll Collected Theology & Religious Studies 2002 A point of contention: the scriptural basis for the Jehovah's Witnesses' refusal of blood transfusions. John R. Spencer John Carroll University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://collected.jcu.edu/theo_rels-facpub Part of the Christianity Commons, and the Ethics in Religion Commons Recommended Citation Spencer, John R., "A point of contention: the scriptural basis for the Jehovah's Witnesses' refusal of blood transfusions." (2002). Theology & Religious Studies. 61. http://collected.jcu.edu/theo_rels-facpub/61 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Carroll Collected. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theology & Religious Studies by an authorized administrator of Carroll Collected. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A Point of Contention: the Scriptural Basis for the Jehovah's Witnesses' Refusal of Blood Transfusions I. Introduction It is questionable whether the “Christian Community” has ever been truly unified. Even very early references to the community, such as the “Apostolic Council” (Acts 15:1—35), attest to conflict and debate within the community. Over the centuries there have been many areas of contention, and one of the frequent battlegrounds has been the understanding of scripture. In some cases the different interpretations of scripture have been minor, with little or no important consequences. In other instances, significant differences have led to radically different claims as to what is ethically or morally appropriate and as to what is so fundamental that one must be willing to die for it. Furthermore, such differences in interpretation have lead to sharp, even violent clashes not only within the Christian community but also between elements of the Christian community and the secular world around them. One specific instance of such a conflict is reflected in the stance of the Jehovah's Witnesses on blood transfusions, which is in conflict with other Christian groups and with the surrounding secular community. Specifically, the conflict revolves around their moral and legal claim that one should reject the use of blood to save the lives of adults and of minor Jehovah's Witness' children. This difference over blood transfusions is but one example of the ”culture wars” between believers and non-believers. Furthermore, the issues are so tightly embedded within the Jehovah's Witnesses' religious understandings that to the general public they appear as incomprehensible. This article will explore the grounds for the commitment of the Jehovah's Witnesses concerning the use of blood, which has set them at odds with mainstream health care policy. Basically, Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the Bible forbids them from accepting blood transfusions. Thus, when a serious or life-threatening injury occurs, Witnesses are expected to refuse a blood transfusion, even when it is medically clear that such a transfusion would save the individual's life. The situation is further complicated when the Witness needing blood is incapable of giving or refusing consent. The stance by Jehovah's Witnesses also creates serious difficulties for performing surgeries, such as organ replacement or repair, where blood loss is a normal complication of the surgery. The rejection of blood transfusions by Jehovah's Witnesses has led to dilemmas for many non-Witnesses, Christian or otherwise. Doctors and nurses have agonized over the loss of life, real or potential, when an individual, or his or her next-of-kin or guardian, has refused a transfusion. Lawyers have argued court cases over who has the right to make life-and-death decisions for others. These judicial cases have frequently developed when legal remedy is sought either by patients or legal guardians who do not want the transfusion or by doctors and governmental representatives who want to save the life of an individual, particularly when a child or an unconscious individual is involved. Finally, this position of the Witnesses has lead to debate, sometimes contentious, between apologists and antagonists of the Witnesses community itself. Although this stance by the Witnesses has proven to be contentious for the medical, legal, and religious personnel involved, there have been some positive results. Doctors and nurses have become more aware of the need to consider a patient's moral and religious understanding in making medical decisions. Furthermore, in trying to accommodate the stance of the Jehovah's Witnesses, doctors have sought new ways of performing surgery, where blood loss has been minimized or eliminated, and have looked for artificial blood components that might be acceptable to the Jehovah's Witness community. There is also greater legal clarity as to who has the right to make these life- and-death decisions for others. And there is further debate on how differing religious communities, particularly Christian ones, should interact with each other. Within this context of competing positions and occasional rancor between different Christian communities, this article will look at a defined issue, which is illustrative of the larger set of problems. The focus is on the manner in which Jehovah's Witnesses have interpreted the Bible in order to support their position on the refusal of blood transfusions. The perspective of the Jehovah's Witnesses on blood transfusions has been known for some time. Indeed, there is considerable literature about the medical, ethical, and legal ramifications of their refusal to accept blood trans- fusions.1 However, while the Witnesses claim that their refusal is based on biblical materials, there has been little analysis of those biblical passages employed in the discussions or of the ethical basis for using biblical materials to make decisions about transfusions. The following article seeks to provide that analysis. In order to examine the biblical basis upon which the Jehovah's Witnesses reject transfusions, this article will first discuss the process of interpretation of scripture in general. There needs to be some clarity about how scripture is generally interpreted and about how Jehovah's Witnesses, in particular, use scripture. The second step will be to examine the manner in which Jehovah's Witnesses and others use the Bible for moral norms. This focus on the Jehovah's Witnesses also necessitates some discussion of the history of the Witnesses' tradition itself. With that as background, there will be a discussion of the specific passages used in the argument against blood transfusions and an analysis of how these passages are understood both in the Jehovah's Witnesses' community and in other communities of interpretation. Finally, there will be a discussion as to how the historical and cultural context impacted the development of the prohibition on blood transfusions in the Jehovah's Witnesses' community. The goal of this article is not to provide evidence for or against the Jehovah's Witnesses' positions on scripture, on ethical theory, or on blood transfusions. Such approaches have been taken by others.2 Rather, this article seeks to provide an understanding of the manner in which Jehovah's Witnesses apply biblical materials to the issue of blood transfusions. Thus, the article seeks to explain the Jehovah's Witnesses' process of interpretation of scripture in light of alternative processes of interpretation, and to examine the Jehovah's Witnesses' employment of the Bible for moral decisions in light of alternative approaches to biblical ethics. II. INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE Perhaps the best way to begin a discussion of the interpretation of scripture is to suggest that such interpretation is more an art than a science.3 However, there are some considerations which need to be raised in order to understand this comment. The first consideration is that the perspective and historical context of the reader of the text affects the interpretation of the text. This is true whether one is reading a novel or sacred literature. Simply exemplified, a child's under- standing of a text will normally be different from that of an adult. This is because the reader's ability, knowledge of the world, and comprehension of the text will vary. Similarly, a reader in the 4th century, employing an allegorical reading, will see a text differently from an 18th century literalist or a 20th century post-modernist. So, one must be aware of literary analysis and the impact of the reader and his or her environment on the interpretation of the text. Different people and people in different times will read scripture in different manners. Consider how a priest, a Buddhist, an evangelical Christian, and a Muslim might read Jewish or Christian scripture, or how Augustine, Luther, and Billy Graham will read scripture. Their perspectives will not be the same. A second consideration in interpreting a text is that of understanding what the writer intended in the text. This is particularly difficult when the text comes from an author who is inaccessible - whether that author is dead or, as some would argue in regard to the biblical text, the author is God and therefore not wholly comprehensible to the reader. What this inaccessibility of the author implies is that the reader must work hard at listening to the text. Within the field of biblical studies, the methodology employed to assist this process of listening is called “exegesis.” It is a term which means “to read out of” and suggests that the reader tries to listen to what the text says and not to herself or himself alone. That is, the reader tries to understand the text and not to impose preconceived notions on the text; the text must be allowed to speak for itself. This process of exegesis entails reconstructing the world of the author and asking such questions as who wrote the text, who was the original audience, when was the text written, what literary type was employed, why the text was composed by the author, and what was the theological “message” the author was trying to convey.